Obama – For whom the bells have tolled

At least, that would be the message to Barack’s campaign handlers, if they were willing to listen. And unfortunately for Barack, that “if” is just a tad too big for his britches.

While his rise into national prominence was a delicate thing of beauty, those of us from Illinois scratched our collective heads, wondering why this semi-hack from our state house was flying like a swan, when the reality is that he lucked into office because of extreme, consistent, and religious based failures by Illinois Reich Wing commissars who run our GOP – more often than not, into the ground, if not into prison.

For all his failed memory lapses contained in his book, at least he reportedly wrote most of it. That is good. Kudos for that. As I try to get one of several (5) I have written published, I admire his success (at the same time that I would kill for 10 private minutes with his agent), the many errors and misrememberances are not a problem. But are they a symptom? Only time will tell.

No, we need not feed his publisher’s pockets to find more obvious omens of Barack’s ultimate future in this election cycle. It can be broken down into four pretty telling points, and two very disgusting ones.

Let’s start with Barack himself. He has several serious problems, the kind that will derail a national campaign by erosion, collapse, and painful agony. In that respect, his campaign resembles Hillary’s – because hers suffers from the same problem.

Barack’s first problem is called “Rezko”. A professional, political whore who buys pols in Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois when it suits his purposes, his close, constant rubbing of elbows with Barack is actually far worse than anything Harry Truman did with his Pendergast connections. Harry’s wife’s White House deep freeze freezer hardly qualifies as graft.

But Barack’s home’s additions certainly do, and that story has been stored, savored, and fully investigated by the GOP, should Barack be the nominee or even the VP.

His second problem is how he dealt with the “Obama” website. Ok, some dude liked what he saw, and decided to do stuff on his own. 168,000 members later, Barack’s naive, ineffectual, and small-minded group of political advisors decided that they should take control.

DUMB DUMB DUMB. REALLY DUMB. By taking away an indie voice, they lost 100,000 viewers and voters. They lost the site’s owner’s support. They appeared greedy, silly, petulant, inept and short-sighted. You know. Like George Bush.

(Say, does that mean that he may be too inexperienced to deal with a national campaign?)

His third problem was to one-up Hillary. Silly geese. Hillary can self-destruct easily on her own. But demanding secret service coverage so early in the process, WITHOUT ANY CREDIBLE THREAT strikes most of America as being Cheney-like, and not a national leader. Cheney, who drives 20 miles only if he has an army of 70 heavily armed Secret Service clones protecting him, has serious mental issues. By pulling this shit, this early, Barack looks like he has fallen for the trappings of power, rather than dealing with the realities of leadership.

His biggest problem is tha growing conviction that he is merely a flash in the pan. His rise was too fast, his descent will take time. But, there are signs that Obama-overload and exhaustion are already setting in. Instead of finding a new, bright, indie voice, a brave new pol, we find a packaged, focus group-based, person who is in love with the attention he gets, and forgets what got him there.

Now for the bad issues. They clearly exist. The first is racism. Ugly, nasty, yet there it is.
Inexperience. This is probably the worst. All of those first four issues magnify this argument beyond control. By taking a nuanced, controlled, and careful stance, he risks attracting new voters who are tired of Bloatway pols. At the same time, by failing to take strong positions on everything except Iraq, he risks alienating everyone else.

His star has lost its booster. Can he recover? Nothing is impossible, but it is highly unlikely. Obama will soon turn into an early leader in every future presidential race, but with little hope of recovering what he has already squandered

19 COMMENTS

Barack Obama’s resume is short and he is untested. His meteoric rise is the result of the fact that he has enormous political talent – more than Clinton, I would say. The question is integrity. Bll Clinton was short on principles, and I suspect Hillary is too. We can’t have Dennis Kucinch, even though he has principles, is right on the issues, and has a long and admirable record, because, as Dave Chapelle said, nobody who looks so much like Gollum could ever be President. Well, if that’s the way it is, then Obama is the best hope I see for more principled, progressive, peace-oriented policies. It’s just a hope. I don’t see anything more hopeful coming down the pike.

Just because major media censorship decides who gets favorable press as a way to stack the deck, don’t over look the only man who is willing to save this nation from sinking deeper into fascism. During the debate last week, Ron Paul was the only one who had answers and plans how he would fix our major ills. He won that debate hands down but was not even mentioned by the main stream media. Obviously the media is not truthfull concerning politics and they exercise censorship and false reporting. Why? Because they can. Wake up people and know thy enemies.

What, pray tell, do we do for the next 19 months but watch pretentious people squirm and then burn?

Truth to tell, Obama is finished, as the writer notes, but so is McCain, so is Guiliani (of “Bush is a great president” sucking up), and so are a few others. All this is just entertainment until the oligarchy decides who they want to support, really. It may probably be none of the above (currently on the scene).

The time for serious consideration is many months away, meanwhile just enjoy the comedy.

Just exactly what experience is necessary in order to establish a foreign policy? Seems to me the policy should be a matter of what is right or wrong for our country. That’s just making good decisions.

Foreign affairs has two basic categories. One is only business decisions. The economic agreements between countries. Thus far, the experience we have had with that has been deplorable. I’ve had about all the experience with that I want. We need someone without that experience who will make better decisions.

The other has to do with disagreements between nations. Some are of like minds and some are not. There is nothing wrong with that unless one attempts to force their views upon another. Our policy should be very simple. You leave us alone and we will leave you alone. Our past experience has been to interfere in the affairs of other nations. Attempting to inject or even force our views upon them. That experience has proved very costly in human life for everyone. It has, also, proved to be very expensive. I’ve had all the experience with that I want, too.

I think it’s about time we had less “experience” in our foreign policy and more good decisions.

I’ve heard a lot of people make the comment that those who use real names are more rational in posting but I’ve never found that to be true. The assumption is that those who don’t are hiding. But some people cannot expose their true names for very good reasons. And I see nothing wrong in being cautious about public exposure when dealing with controversial subjects. There are enough horror stories to justify it. The world is full of lunatics.

I often wonder why people make a big deal about a person’s experience. So I can deduce that in your opinion since he is inexperienced that the more experienced person such as the current President can f**k things up and everything is ok. kewl. Let’s get more experienced people in office especially those from the major political parties.

Have you ever noticed how people who use their real names write rationally and with sensitivity whereas those who are afraid to use their names write with great malice and anger and often exhibit signs of anti- this or that?

I have to apologize for the use of the male gender when speaking of the president. We are all so enculturated to think of “he” when referring to the president. Then it just gets too wordy to say he or she etc.

Comments are closed.

Our Privacy Policy

We use third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our Web site.

These companies may use aggregated information (not including your name, address, email address or telephone number) about your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you.